“'What is life?' is a linguistic trap. To answer according to the rules of grammar, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a verb. It is a material process, surfing over matter like a slow wave. It is a controlled artistic chaos, a set of chemical reactions so staggeringly complex that more than 4 billion years ago it began a sojourn that now, in human form, composes love letters and uses silicon computers to calculate the temperature of matter at the birth of the universe.”

Well, she's not really saying that 'life' is a verb. And she doesn't even mention 'faith'.

I was not claiming "life" was literally a verb...I was using the term figuratively....as was she.

I would say that 'life' and 'faith' are in fact both prepositions.

to me, "life" is a state of being and "faith" is often called an "act of faith"....or "living in faith"...both of which could be claimed to be words of action...at least sort of.

so I haven't looked around here much...are there any/many anti-darwinists here?

We had a housewife named FtK who argued for about 500 posts. Most of her posts were about why she didn't want to talk. Evasive and boring. A YEC from texas like yourself named AFDave posted about 1500 times before we encouraged him to take his show on the road to Internet Infidels Discussion Board. He still posts on our Bathroom Wall thread.

We've been looking around for other creationists. The problem is, we're an educated crowd. About 100 people here have science degrees, for instance. But we can't find educated creationists. We've got one educated, smart guy who calls himself a creationist but doesn't really oppose evolution, so, that doesn't generate much heat. We're trying to find educated anti-evolutionists. People who are familiar with science's processes and results. It's no fun for us to argue with people who don't really know anything. So far, no luck.

so I haven't looked around here much...are there any/many anti-darwinists here?

We had a housewife named FtK who argued for about 500 posts. Most of her posts were about why she didn't want to talk. Evasive and boring. A YEC from texas like yourself named AFDave posted about 1500 times before we encouraged him to take his show on the road to Internet Infidels Discussion Board. He still posts on our Bathroom Wall thread.

We've been looking around for other creationists. The problem is, we're an educated crowd. About 100 people here have science degrees, for instance. But we can't find educated creationists. We've got one educated, smart guy who calls himself a creationist but doesn't really oppose evolution, so, that doesn't generate much heat. We're trying to find educated anti-evolutionists. People who are familiar with science's processes and results. It's no fun for us to argue with people who don't really know anything. So far, no luck.

well I don't know if I would meet your criteria or not for "educated." I don't have a degree in science, but I do some reading on it...or at least I look at the pictures in the books I have....that's worth something, I guess.

When you sit back and look at this whole thing, the debate is so polar opposite it’s almost eery. But I just thought I’d compare and contrast what I consider the most obvious difference in philosophy.

Materialists: believe that lifeforms are evolving upwards from something ugly (bacteria, fungues, etc) by way of a purely physical mechanism…(no thought or intelligence required)

SS: believes that we are devolving downwards from something beautiful (God) by way of the mind or mental processes.

Materiatists: say genes get passed down through the generations.

SS: says the mind gets passed down through the generations.

Materialists: say the genes control the mind

SS: says the mind controls the genes

With this comparison, it is easy to see who the real competitors are: the competition is between the physical actions of genes and the mental/spiritual processes of the mind. It can be no other way. Either information gets squeezed out of the random actions of genes or it gets squeezed out of the purposeful processes of the mind.

Evolutionists give the genome the credit for being the origin of information. I, on the otherhand acknowledge that the genome is a data base of information, but is merely a storage device and does not act as the generator of information. Instead, information’s source is ultimately God, but as we were made in God’s image, information’s source also resides in our minds just like it resides in God’s mind.

We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases. Society is certainly degenerating genetically…this fact alone dispells the notion that we’re in the process of increasing in complexity, as darwinists insist…instead we’re deteriorating, decreasing in complexity. But is the deteriorating genome the source of degeneration? I would say not because I believe the mind and mental processes are in control of the genome…and if this is the case, then the spiritual MIND is ultimately what’s degenerating, which makes the physical genome a follower of degeneration, not a leader. Likewise, with the emergence of new traits, the genome (the storage device) is not the leader, it’s the follower. New traits don’t come from a change in the genome, new traits come from a change in the mind.

This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.

This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.

Why is it you fundies have such a hangup about sex?

It's like you are trapped permanently in the birth canal.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

I used to have a supersport quote for my MSN name. Something about atheists being evil or somesuch, but it was really aggressive, even more so than the normal "those darn atheist satan worshippers" nonsense.

The man is a legend. Unfortunately, I doubt he thinks it's for the same reasons I do.

--------------I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

It is a gay man's disease. The only way a regular person can catch it is if he/she sleeps with a homo.

Supersport, Christian Forums [Comments (39)] 2006-Nov-05

And to think of all the money I wasted for condoms at that brothel in Thailand!

Yes, but think of all the money you'll save not having to insist on a clean needle and screened blood at your next transfusion.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.

Why is it you fundies have such a hangup about sex?

It's like you are trapped permanently in the birth canal.

everyone has hangups with sex....we "fundies" just don't do it with animals and with members of our own gender like others in society.

We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.

O'Rlly?

Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.

According to you and Sanford, that's not possible.

Yet here we are. And here they are.

Don't bother OldMan, you're wasting your time.

Probably diet.....bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates. It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.

the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.

whereas you don't have a single shred of evidence that

Quote

bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates. It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.

So you appear to be saying where we find pollution we won't find any bacteria?

That appears to be contradicted by

Quote

Bacteria found in radioactive waste Hanford. U.S. Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most considered inhospitable to all forms of life. According to a microbial ecologist at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory in Richland, living organisms were even found in some of the most contaminated zones. For most living creatures, the nuclear and chemical waste in the underground storage tanks on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington is the deadliest mixture of toxins and radioactive muck on the planet. For certain bacteria however, the toxic goop left over from decades of nuclear weapons production appears to be a second home.

Oh, "Probably". That old saving grace of creationists everywhere. AFDave's "it could have" springs to mind.

If you had the confidence of your convictions you'd have no need for the "Probably". I mean, if you knew it for a fact you can just state as much. No Probably required.

If you have evidence to back up your claims, you'd state it, no Probably required.

If you are just guessing wildly because you don't really have a clue and need to justify it to yourself, because otherwise where does that leave the rest of your belief system, then yes, you might need to throw in quite a few "Probably".

In fact, I might invest in shares of "Probably", this thread will have more then it's fair share.

the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.

No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes. The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them. Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they? Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around. But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.

the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.

No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes. The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them. Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they? Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around. But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.

The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.

No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes. The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them. Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they? Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around. But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.

The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...

Not only that but "the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time" can easily be countered by the equally simplistic "the simple fact that lifeforms could have been built up materialistically over time"

No wonder the creationists like "argument by assertion", it's just like reading the bible!

"It's the way it is b'coz gawd says it is, no question".

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...

no I actually gave you a couple reasons, did you actually read my post?

the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.

No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes. The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them. Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they? Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around. But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.

The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?

you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.

Supersport, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

Sanfords generic entropy puts an upper limit on the number of available reproduction events.

Supersport, I know they are not degenerating because they are still there after the maximum amount of reproductive events Sanford says are available to them.

I ask again, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

And how many generations does that give us per year?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.

No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes. The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them. Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they? Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around. But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.

The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?

you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.

Supersport, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

Sanfords generic entropy puts an upper limit on the number of available reproduction events.

Supersport, I know they are not degenerating because they are still there after the maximum amount of reproductive events Sanford says are available to them.

I ask again, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

And how many generations does that give us per year?

sorry that doesn't cut it -- if you are going to make an assertion that bacteria aren't degenerating you are going to have to provide proof. Besides that, degeneration happens in ways that cannot be seen in genes. For example, many diseases are heritable, thereby degenerating a population, but these diseases cannot be seen in the genome, but in the epigenome. The degeneration is not with the genes themselves, but in the mental processes that control the genes.

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn't preserve the bones were essentially transformed into "rocks" through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.

Branching vessels found in bone matrix of T. rex (A) and ostrich (B). (Images courtesy of North Carolina State University)Ads by Google Advertise on this site

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it's still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.